One thing Russ Moore does not want to talk about now is the fundamentalist leadership of the Takeover--Pressler, Patterson, Albert Lee Smith, Jesse Helms and ADrian Rogers Ed McAteer--shady race history on the margins if not card carrying Bircher and white citizens council apologists. Our "moderate" ancestry is not pure on the matter, Tom Graves recent testimony on his Dad and Robert E Lee Pulitzer biographer Southwell drives that point home in recent Christian Ethics Today pivotal confession. SBTS Duke McCall is weighed in the balance and found touring Indiana when he coulda been in Chapel in Louisville and listening to Martin Luther King Jr.

Still Mohler and Moore don't have a platform without the work of some of the last holdouts of the Lost Cause. Also see Lee Atwater's "****** memo" in Wuthnows' Rough Country and how it evolved into SBC leadership religion card for the glory of the Bushes, Fox News and now Trump. Molly Worthen works the nuances in a spate of recent pieces at nytimes and the atlantic as monuments come down in New Orleans and a spotlight is on North Carolina where UNC chancellor Bill Friday knew in 87 how things were breaking for Helms in the ouster of Randall Lolley. He told Cecil Sherman as much.

So here we are. None are blameless, but at a minimum we can tell the truth about the History of how we got here.

What my friend Sandy, the apologist for FBC Spartanburg and all its Gowdy fog, calls a rant is now the emerging consensus view. Since this original post and link, Reublican operative of the politicalorphans blog had a piece in none other than Forbes Magazine ratifying the very assertions Ive been making over the last 20 years, assertions Sandy has routinely and at almost every point taken exception to.

So not that anybody is taking score, but who is winning this exchange, Carlyle Marney, Ellen Rosenberg, Randall Balmer, Tom Edsall, Molly Worthen and me and now Chris Ladd; or Lee Sandy Saunders, Trey Gowdy, Sara Huckabee Sanders and FBC Spartanburg TNG conferences.

I think it is becoming more evident who is sliding into the dustbin of history

Let's clarify. The "emerging consensus" is represented by the RD article, not Stephen's name drops and comments. That's not a rant. But just citing the article, and then going back over your normal name drops and comments, as if there is an obvious connection, isn't corroboration of your view, any more than the Forbes article you mention. I know you don't like Moore because of his Southern Baptist pedigree, but the fact of the matter is that he's not an apologist for those you associate with the "fundamentalist takeover," and you're going to have to get past that to make sense. The "takeover" or "resurgence" was over 30 years ago, so stuff that is coming out now doesn't have much to do with it, and the names are changing. The politics are vastly different. The resurgence/takeover leadership isn't relevant now, and hasn't been for a couple of decades.

The Covenant isn't going to tell Southern Baptists much of anything. You're one of very few people who even accord it much in the way of relevance. I think its pretty much dead.

I know you don't like Moore because of his Southern Baptist pedigree, but the fact of the matter is that he's not an apologist for those you associate with the "fundamentalist takeover," and you're going to have to get past that to make sense. The "takeover" or "resurgence" was over 30 years ago, so stuff that is coming out now doesn't have much to do with it, and the names are changing. The politics are vastly different. The resurgence/takeover leadership isn't relevant now, and hasn't been for a couple of decades.

Sandy, I have an idea that fox like others of us has a dislike for Moore not because of his SBC pedigree but because of his several slanted articles published by the SBC's Baptist Press during the early years of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. And how can you claim that Moore is not an apologist for those who engineered the Takevoer of the SBC? And Sandy did you not in the last week write about the decline in the SBC over the recent past decades? How can such be called a resurgence. As for the 30 years thing, you are aware are you not of the adage that, "Those who ignore history are are condemned to repeat it."

Do you really believe those who control the SBC today would be in the same positions had it not been for those who Ralph Storm labeled as the PP Boys and their cohorts.

Your disdain for Foxes style is well known maybe even shared by some but your harping has been ineffective .

It might be worthwhile to read Moore's articles on CBF again, though that was quite some time ago. This is a different era, for both the SBC and CBF. Stephen pulled in a couple of good articles on the persistent segregation of Christian churches, including Evangelicals, but which contained zero mention of the names that Stephen dropped, nor did the Forbes article that he mentioned. Of course Moore isn't talking about the "fundamentalist leadership of the takeover" because the resurgence/takeover occurred over 30 years ago, and has nothing to do with the content of either article. That is, as you well know, Stephen's way of making the connection. Other than general association, the RD article said nothing about Southern Baptists, and Moore has been pretty clear and straight up about his views on race, and honest about where Southern Baptists have been. He took a lot of heat for his stance against Trump, and his trustees stood by him, even though I'm sure there were some who disagreed. That would not have happened in the letter writing days of Paige Patterson. Regardless, neither the RD or the Forbes article even touched on these individuals, or specifically on the SBC.

I don't recall Moore ever having been in a position to be an "apologist" for the resurgence aka takeover leadership. If you can point to something he wrote along that line, I'll read it.

As you well know, the term "resurgence" does not apply to church growth in the SBC. It applies to the efforts of those who led it in activating a segment of churches and individuals within the SBC who felt shut out of convention leadership by the exclusive group that had controlled it for years. It was viewed as a resurgence, because while the SBC as a whole was conservative theologically and socially, the leadership that had been elected, going back to the early 60's, didn't reflect those views, and left many conservatives disgruntled and disinterested. The resurgence got them active in the denomination again. In reality, it couldn't have been a "takeover," since you can't "take over" something in which you are already entitled full participation.

Sandy wrote:It might be worthwhile to read Moore's articles on CBF again, though that was quite some time ago. This is a different era, for both the SBC and CBF. Stephen pulled in a couple of good articles on the persistent segregation of Christian churches, including Evangelicals, but which contained zero mention of the names that Stephen dropped, nor did the Forbes article that he mentioned. Of course Moore isn't talking about the "fundamentalist leadership of the takeover" because the resurgence/takeover occurred over 30 years ago, and has nothing to do with the content of either article. That is, as you well know, Stephen's way of making the connection. Other than general association, the RD article said nothing about Southern Baptists, and Moore has been pretty clear and straight up about his views on race, and honest about where Southern Baptists have been. He took a lot of heat for his stance against Trump, and his trustees stood by him, even though I'm sure there were some who disagreed. That would not have happened in the letter writing days of Paige Patterson. Regardless, neither the RD or the Forbes article even touched on these individuals, or specifically on the SBC.

I don't recall Moore ever having been in a position to be an "apologist" for the resurgence aka takeover leadership. If you can point to something he wrote along that line, I'll read it.

As you well know, the term "resurgence" does not apply to church growth in the SBC. It applies to the efforts of those who led it in activating a segment of churches and individuals within the SBC who felt shut out of convention leadership by the exclusive group that had controlled it for years. It was viewed as a resurgence, because while the SBC as a whole was conservative theologically and socially, the leadership that had been elected, going back to the early 60's, didn't reflect those views, and left many conservatives disgruntled and disinterested. The resurgence got them active in the denomination again. In reality, it couldn't have been a "takeover," since you can't "take over" something in which you are already entitled full participation.

Ed: Sandy you may want to look up the meaning of resurgence. And you may recall that when they gained control the takeover leaders denied participation to several former leaders, that us takeover.

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy you may want to look up the meaning of resurgence. And you may recall that when they gained control the takeover leaders denied participation to several former leaders, that us takeover.

They did? That's news to me. "denying participation" to several former leaders implies that the leaders were entitled to leadership. That was part of the problem, that there were those in that pre-1979 leadership core of the SBC who thought that their pedigree and influence entitled them to be in charge. Yeah, I know some people were not renominated for their "customary second term" on trustee boards, but just because something has always been done that way, and someone else changes the practice doesn't mean a "takeover."

As far as a "resurgence" goes, well, the conservatives presided over more than two decades of expanding membership, increasing numbers of new churches, baptism, and increased attendance before things started to slow down at the beginning of this century.

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy you may want to look up the meaning of resurgence. And you may recall that when they gained control the takeover leaders denied participation to several former leaders, that us takeover.

They did? That's news to me. "denying participation" to several former leaders implies that the leaders were entitled to leadership. That was part of the problem, that there were those in that pre-1979 leadership core of the SBC who thought that their pedigree and influence entitled them to be in charge. Yeah, I know some people were not renominated for their "customary second term" on trustee boards, but just because something has always been done that way, and someone else changes the practice doesn't mean a "takeover."

As far as a "resurgence" goes, well, the conservatives presided over more than two decades of expanding membership, increasing numbers of new churches, baptism, and increased attendance before things started to slow down at the beginning of this century.

I am not where I can thoroughly check your claim about thr "more than two decades of expanding membership, increasing numbers of new churches, baptism, and increased attendance before things started to slow down at the beginning of this century." That may have been that the upward momentum generated by the holly spirit leading the the Pre 1979 leadership. But take another look and you will find think a serious growth slow down, starting in about 1984. Of course many of us who opposed the takeover remained and supported the CP awaiting while awaiting that famous swing back of the pendulum. Then came the defunding of the Seminary at Ruschlicon sp The replacement of capable Faculty and Staff in our domestic Seminaries, often with folk coming from ultra conservative/fundamentalist Baptist ranks that had long been critical of the SBC IE: Falwell and others.